Naked hiking in Switzerland: what the Federal Supreme Court decided in 2011

In short: The Swiss Criminal Code does not punish non-sexual nudity in public. The cantons may, however, regulate it in their minor-offence law. In judgment 6B_345/2011 of 17 November 2011 (BGE 138 IV 13), the Federal Supreme Court upheld a fine of 100 francs for hiking naked in the canton of Appenzell Ausserrhoden. For travellers this means that anyone hiking in Switzerland should wear clothes and, when in doubt, check cantonal law. This text is information, not legal advice.

The case at a glance

According to the University of Bern's case-law database, the appellant hiked naked in October 2009 through the Nieschberg recreation area near Herisau (Appenzell Ausserrhoden), passing a family with small children. A passer-by reported him. He was fined 100 francs, with one day's replacement imprisonment, under Art. 19 of the cantonal criminal law for "indecent behaviour". The Federal Supreme Court dismissed his appeal. The judgment carries the number 6B_345/2011 and is published as BGE 138 IV 13; the Criminal Law Division decided it on 17 November 2011.

The legal reasoning in plain words

Federal and cantonal law. The Criminal Code (StGB) does not punish non-sexual nudity in public. But the cantons may regulate it in their minor-offence law under Art. 335 para. 1 StGB. The Appenzell Ausserrhoden provision punishes anyone who "in any other way grossly violates public decency and propriety". The court held this wording sufficiently precise.

Gross violation of decency. Naked hiking can reasonably be classed as a gross violation of public decency. The test is the reaction of an average person, not of the especially sensitive or the especially indifferent. The court said that naked hiking is "here and almost everywhere else, today and always, entirely unusual and uncommon". It is also enough that the conduct is objectively offensive; an actually offended person is not required.

Personal freedom. The ban restricts personal freedom at most minimally, since hikers only have to cover their genitals. It is also proportionate even in remote areas.

Mistake of law. Not knowing that conduct is punishable does not excuse it. Believing something is allowed is not enough.

No waiver of punishment. Given the Sunday, the good weather, the popular trail and the families present, a waiver of punishment under Art. 52 StGB did not apply.

Criticism and open questions

The Bern law professor Axel Tschentscher criticised the judgment in the journal ZBJV 2012. He argues that a total ban on remote trails may be disproportionate and that the general clause of public morality is "not sufficiently precise to establish criminal liability in disputed borderline cases". That criticism exists does not change the practice for travellers: the judgment is final and the provision remains in force.

Appenzell Innerrhoden and other cantons

According to reports about the Alpstein, the canton of Appenzell Innerrhoden introduced a penal provision in 2009 after several naked hikers had appeared in the Alpstein in autumn 2008. The level of fines there and elsewhere is reported differently in the media; we therefore cite only the court-documented amount of 100 francs in the Appenzell Ausserrhoden case. We have not checked the position in other cantons. Whether and how naked hiking is allowed there is governed by their laws.

Practical tips for travellers and couples

The following points are editorial recommendations:

1. Clothes on trails. Hikers wear clothing. It also protects against cold and sunburn at altitude.
2. Use naturist offers. Those who value naturism should use designated areas named by their operators, not public paths.
3. Check cantonal law. If unsure, ask the municipality or the canton.
4. Consideration for others. Paths are used by families. The Federal Supreme Court took exactly that into account in the case.
5. No photos of strangers. That applies always.

Frequently asked questions

Is naked hiking banned across Switzerland? There is no federal ban. But the cantons may regulate it, and at least in the Appenzell cantons mentioned there are penal provisions.

How high was the fine in the 2011 case? 100 francs, with one day's replacement imprisonment, under Art. 19 of the Appenzell Ausserrhoden criminal law.

Does someone have to feel offended? No. According to the judgment, the conduct counts, not a person's actual feelings.

Does ignorance protect against punishment? No. Not knowing that something is punishable does not automatically excuse it.

Does it apply to remote trails too? The court held the ban proportionate there as well; there is, however, academic criticism.

Sources (accessed 10 November 2026)

• Federal Supreme Court, judgment 6B_345/2011 of 17 Nov 2011 (BGE 138 IV 13), case-law database: https://www.servat.unibe.ch/dfr/c4138013.html
• Federal Supreme Court, press release on 6B_345/2011: https://www.bger.ch/files/live/sites/tfl/files/pdf/Medienmitteilungen/de/MM_6B_345_2011_d.pdf
• swissinfo.ch on bans in Appenzell Innerrhoden: https://www.swissinfo.ch/ger/innerrhoden-begegnet-dem-zunehmenden-tourismus-mit-verboten/89705286